Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Sharing knowledge between open cities: how can we start today?

388 views

Published on

Presentation by Mathias Van Compernolle and Niels Walravens at Open Belgium 2017.

Published in: Data & Analytics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Sharing knowledge between open cities: how can we start today?

  1. 1. PUBLIC Sharing Knowledge Between Open Cities How can we start today? Mathias Van Compernolle & Nils Walravens Open Belgium 2017
  2. 2. “Will the real Smart City please stand up?” Hollands, 2008
  3. 3. What makes a city smart? The wrong way • Use case-driven • Vendor lock-in • Fragmentation • Either top-down or bottom-up • Technocratic The right way • Problem-driven • Open data, processes, systems • Shared standards and services • The city as a platform • Democratic
  4. 4. Power of Data Open Platforms Systemic Innovation The Parametric Smart City Ballon, 2016
  5. 5. Power of Data Open Platforms Systemic Innovation Privacy by default Privacy by design Scripted Serendipity Increase knowledge RDI-role for cities Open technological black box PPPP Increase visibility Leadership and horizontal structures The Parametric Smart City Ballon, 2016
  6. 6. Power of Data Open Platforms Systemic Innovation Privacy by default Privacy by design Scripted Serendipity Increase knowledge RDI-role for cities Open technological black box PPPP Increase visibility Leadership and horizontal structures The city as permanent Living Lab Regulate the smart city architecture Put forward ambitious and measurable goals Develop smart city regions CTO with step-by-step approach The Parametric Smart City Ballon, 2016
  7. 7. QUADRUPLE HELIX The Quadruple Helix as a guide for innovation, knowledge creation, democratisation of knowledge and system development COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT
  8. 8. QUADRUPLE HELIX COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT The Quadruple Helix as a guide for innovation, knowledge creation, democratisation of knowledge and system development
  9. 9. QUADRUPLE HELIX COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT The Quadruple Helix as a guide for innovation, knowledge creation, democratisation of knowledge and system development
  10. 10. QUADRUPLE HELIX COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT The Quadruple Helix as a guide for innovation, knowledge creation, democratisation of knowledge and system development
  11. 11. FIRMS • Firms create, develop and commercialise technologies • Looking for a a commercial advantage against competitors. • We can do-anything principle • “Thé Government” as financial instigator for innovation COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT
  12. 12. ACADEMIA • STEM disciplines as core partners in high risk technology development • Social scientists confronted with the computational turn COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT
  13. 13. GOVERNMENT • ICTs within the internal organisation shabbily treated • ICT and informatics not a sexy political theme (‘innovation on the other hand is) • ICT-capacity, knowledge and skills: withdrawn from the organisation via outsourcing FOCUS ON ICT COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT
  14. 14. GOVERNMENT • Vendor lock-in • Kind of oligopoly that is slowing the innovation capacity of local governments FOCUS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ICT COMPANIES COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT Source: Agency of Domestic Governance (2015)
  15. 15. GOVERNMENT • ICTs within the internal organisation shabbily treated • ICT and informatics not a sexy political theme (‘innovation on the other hand is) • ICT-capacity, knowledge and skills: withdrawn from the organisation via outsourcing • Kind of oligopoly that is slowing the innovation capacity of local governments • Governmental structures are making it difficult to define a common approach • Challenge today: data exchange within one administration and between several administrations FOCUS ON ICT COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT
  16. 16. GOVERNMENT • ICTs within the internal organisation shabbily treated • ICT and informatics not a sexy political theme (‘innovation on the other hand is) • ICT-capacity, knowledge and skills: withdrawn from the organisation via outsourcing • Kind of oligopoly that is slowing the innovation capacity of local governments • Governmental structures are making it difficult to define a common approach • Challenge today: data exchange within one administration and between several administrations • Challenge tomorrow within a smart city context: how to manage the data flows generated by machines outside the organisation? • Smart City = lack of vision + city marketing FOCUS ON ICT COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT
  17. 17. GOVERNMENT • ICTs within the internal organisation shabbily treated • ICT and informatics not a sexy political theme (‘innovation on the other hand is) • ICT-capacity, knowledge and skills: withdrawn from the organisation via outsourcing • Kind of oligopoly that is slowing the innovation capacity of local governments • Governmental structures are making it difficult to define a common approach • Challenge today: data exchange within one administration and between several administrations • Challenge tomorrow within a smart city context: how to manage the data flows generated by machines outside the organisation? • Smart City = lack of vision + city marketing FOCUS ON ICT COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT
  18. 18. GOVERNMENT • ICTs within the internal organisation shabbily treated • ICT and informatics not a sexy political theme (‘innovation on the other hand is) • ICT-capacity, knowledge and skills: withdrawn from the organisation via outsourcing • Kind of oligopoly that is slowing the innovation capacity of local governments • Governmental structures are making it difficult to define a common approach • Challenge today: data exchange within one administration and between several administrations • Challenge tomorrow within a smart city context: how to manage the data flows generated by machines outside the organisation? • Smart City = lack of vision + city marketing FOCUS ON ICT COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT
  19. 19. GOVERNMENT A (new?) debate on the core tasks and position of a government arises: • What will we do ourselves (again)? • How can governments keep up with the technology transition and assure they have the right competences: new profiles: ‘socio’-informaticus FOCUS ON ICT COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT
  20. 20. A new debate on the core tasks and position of a government arises: • What will we do ourselves (again)? • How can governments keep up with the technology transition and assure they have the right competences: new profiles: ‘socio’-informaticus • What do we want as a society in a smart city context? COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT A government that adopts the technology An all-knowing and controlling government
  21. 21. CITIZEN • Who is the citizen? Changes within themes and domains: • Patient, client, customer, (end-)user, tourist, inhabitant, mobilist, producer, prosumer,... • Citizen participation: is this the right concept in smart cities? • High pressure on giving back autonomy to (groups) of citizens • Traditional participation channels (eg. municipal advisory boards are on their way back) • Degree of participation in the smart city? COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT
  22. 22. CITIZEN Activity Role of the citizen Self control Initiator/Responsible/ Manager/Decider Coproduction Partner Codecision Partial decision maker Advising Bringing in ideas, advising Consulting Consulted/Interviewee Informing Customer/hearer COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT
  23. 23. CITIZEN • Citizen participation: is this the right concept in smart cities? • High pressure on giving back autonomy to (groups) of citizens • Traditional participation channels (eg. municipal advisory boards are on their way back) • Degree of participation in the smart city? • New ways: more temporary engagements and within networked relations • Passive participation via technology and monitoring (Waze, GPS, logged and filmed citizens,...) COMPANIES KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS CITIZENS GOVERNMENT
  24. 24. Citizen and privacy Privacy = protection Privacy Institutes and upcoming regulations: PSI & GDPR (vague)
  25. 25. Citizen and privacy Privacy = protection Privacy Institutes and upcoming regulations: PSI & GDPR (vague) Privacy by design: a combination of technological and legal ‘adjustments’ to ensure that the power balance in the exchange process that goes along with privacy, is back in favor of the subject/end-user/logged-one/citizen/… (Ballon, 2016)
  26. 26. Citizen and privacy Privacy = protection Privacy Institutes and upcoming regulations: PSI & GDPR (vague) Privacy by design: a combination of technological and legal ‘adjustments’ to ensure that the power balance in the exchange process that goes along with privacy, is back in favor of the subject/end-user/logged-one/citizen/… (Ballon, 2016) • Data aggregation, new alternatives for the National Register Number (BE), crossroad databases, citizens and data safes and…. • Open by default • Encryption • Rebuilding the Internet?
  27. 27. Where to start?
  28. 28. CONTEXT SMART FLANDERS
  29. 29. Context of the Smart Flanders programme Diverse initiatives of the Flemish Government, publication ‘Smart Cities’ book by Pieter Ballon, international trends and research point to the importance of collaboration Quadruple helix approaches Complexity and different speeds Combat fragmentation, level playing field, link to international initiatives from own strengths Smart Region approach: Smart Flanders
  30. 30. PRINCIPLES
  31. 31. Core principles of Smart Flanders Support programme, communications channel, knowledge and interaction platform Focus on real-time open data and shared reference architectures Cooperation between cities and actors from the quadruple helix Implementation-driven Internationally networked Lighthouse model for smaller cities (13 centre cities and VGC Brussels)
  32. 32. PROJECT STRUCTURE
  33. 33. Threefold project structure 1. Open and Agile Smart Flanders: Maturity Check 2. Smart Flanders Data Pilots: Reality Check 3. Smart Flanders Testbed: Conformity Check
  34. 34. 1. Open & Agile Smart Flanders: Maturity Check Support in identifying potential datasets and developing a roadmap towards publishing Support in running an individual maturity check as a guide in building an open data strategy Support in joining the Open & Agile Smart Cities network (oascities.org) Starting a permanent OASC-Flanders branch Writing a joint and widely supported Open Data Charter
  35. 35. 2. Smart Flanders Data Pilots: Reality Check Implementation-driven approach means that: - Every city opens at least one real-time dataset every year - Every year 1 or 2 joint data pilots are started as use cases, together with partners from the quadruple helix Starting from themes and challenges present in the participating cities - not from the data Identification, roadmapping and matchmaking with support of Smart Flanders
  36. 36. 3. Smart Flanders Testbed: Conformity Check In a later stage of the project, the City of Things-infrastructure (CoT) in Antwerp can be used as testbed for new, joint solutions (hardware & software) The Smart Flanders testbed will be an interoperability lab that allows testing of openness, conformity and performance of innovative infrastructure and services in a real-life setting Smart Flanders will support shaping the CoT tests (ideation, roadmapping, collaboration model), while the execution of the large-scale test in negotiated between cities and CoT
  37. 37. RESULTS
  38. 38. Targeted results year 1 Launch pilot programme (M08): aimed at quadruple helix Open Data Charter (M12): publication integrated and supported text Maturity Check tool (M12): First iteration (validated by M18)
  39. 39. TEAM
  40. 40. Prof. Dr. Pieter Ballon Strategic Coordinator pieter.ballon@imec.be Director imec – SMIT – VUB PhD Communication Sciences Author “Smart Cities: Hoe Technologie Onze Steden Leefbaar Houdt en Slimmer Maakt” - Lannoo, 2016 Strategic coordination
  41. 41. Dr. Nils Walravens Operational Coordinator nils.walravens@imec.be Senior Researcher imec – SMIT – VUB PhD Communication Sciences on public value, mobile apps en Smart City strategies Operational coordination and content development
  42. 42. Pieter Colpaert Chief Technology pieter.colpaert@imec.be Researcher imec – IDLab – UGent Finalising PhD: open data publishing for maximal reuse Contact technical questions and vision on data publishing
  43. 43. Mathias Van Compernolle Policy & Methodology Lead mathias.vancompernolle@imec.be Researcher imec – MICT – UGent Initiated PhD gestart on governmental innovation, with focus on data government Development Maturity Check and collaboration techniques, policy expertise open data & e-government
  44. 44. Dr. Davor Meersman Pilot & Re-use Lead davor.meersman@imec.be Business Developer imec – SMIT – VUB Contact OASC-Flanders and international, support and matchmaking pilots
  45. 45. Jan Waeben Monitoring Lead jan.waeben@imec.be PhD Researcher imec – SMIT – VUB Initiated PhD on international Smart City monitors and benchmarking Contact and support of monitoring activities
  46. 46. CALL TO ACTION
  47. 47. What can Smart Flanders mean for the Open Belgium community? Looking for an open dialogue with all relevant actors We welcome other levels of government and administrations to share expertise and insight Open to ideas that can support the programme and our cities further Data pilots can make the collaboration with actors from the quadruple helix very concrete What would you expect from Smart Flanders?
  48. 48. PUBLIC

×